Grunewald v. United States Halperin v. United States Bolich v. United States
| Decision Date | 15 October 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 186,No. 184,No. 183,183,184,186 |
| Parties | Henry W. GRUNEWALD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America. Max HALPERIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America. Daniel A. BOLICH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are granted limiting the questions to those enumerated below:
'1. Whether a conviction of a conspiracy to procure from the Fraud Bureau of the Internal Revenue Department a decision not to prosecute a tax fraud, where the object of the conspiracy had been accomplished by January, 1949, and prosecution was barred under the statute of limitations by January, 1952, may be sustained, on the theory that the conspiracy must have included a continuing agreement to conceal—the indictment having been found October 25, 1954, and the proof being that one or more of the conspirators in March, 1952, attempted to cover their tracks from investigators.
'2. Whether independent acts of alleged conspirators, after the accomplishment of the object of the conspiracy and done without the knowledge or the participation of the petitioner Grunewald, may suffice to support a charge against him that the original conspiracy included a continuing purpose to conceal so that the conspiracy might be deemed to extend down to the last act of concealment.
'3. Whether an alleged continuing conspiracy to conceal could be found as to the petitioner Grunewald, when he was concerned only with the original object of the conspiracy and was acquitted by the Trial Court on three counts of attempting to influence witnesses, which the Court charged the jury could be acts of continuing concealment.
'4. Whether a purpose to continue to conceal the accomplishment of the primary conspiracy may be inferred from the fact that the conspirators would be pre- sumed to know that their activities would always be open to investigation—whether a subordinate conspiracy to conceal may be implied from the original crime.
'5. Whether the Trial Court committed error in permitting the jury to find a continuing conspiracy to conceal from the fact that, more than three years after and object of the conspiracy had been accomplished, the petitioner Grunewald, when his secretary was subpoenaed before a grand jury, told her she need not answer various questions and could say she forgot.
'6. Whether the Trial Court committed error in permitting the defendant Halperin, the only witness for the defense, to be cross-examined, for the purpose of impeaching his credibility, on the fact that he had been, prior to the trial, subpoenaed before a grand jury and had there claimed his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination on a long line of questions. The constitutional privilege thus infringed is that part of the Fifth Amendment which reads '* * * nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself * * *"?
'1. When a defendant testifies in his own defense at his trial, and his answers to questions show that, although averring his innocence, he was justified in invoking the Fifth Amendment with regard to like questions before a Grand Jury—as in this case all agree—is not that defendant denied due process when the Government on cross-examination brings out before the trial jury, the fact that he refused to answer the questions before the Grand Jury, upon such constitutional grounds?
'2. When a defendant has been subpoenaed to testify before a Grand Jury in an investigation, of which he is a primary target, has claimed his Constitutional privilege, advised the Grand Jury that he was doing so as an innocent man ensnared in suspicious circumstances and because he could not cross-examine or be represented by counsel, may the trial court charge the jury that they, may consider his refusal to testify before the Grand Jury on the score of his credibility, although his trial testimony was entirely consistent with his position before the Grand Jury?
'3. Under the circumstances surrounding a defendant's appearance before a Grand Jury as set forth in the last preceding paragraph, does not the Court's instruction as aforesaid illegally impeach and impede the defendant's statutory right to be a witness on his own behalf?
'4. Does the rationale of Raffel v. United States, 271 U.S. 494 [46 S.Ct. 566...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liddy, In re
... ... No. 73-1562 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... District of ... 156, 100 L.Ed. 788 (1955). See also Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 423, 77 S.Ct. 91, ... ...
-
Smith v. Sperling
... ... -in-law of a director of Warner Bros., and United States Pictures, Inc. (which we will call ... ...
-
United States v. Hoffa
...case, as well as in such other cases as Giglio, United States v. Giglio, 2 Cir., 1956, 232 F.2d 589, certiorari granted 352 U.S. 865, 77 S.Ct. 91, 1 L.Ed.2d 74 and Lawn, United States v. Lawn, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1953, 115 F.Supp. 674, Government's appeal dismissed as not timely filed, United State......
-
Grunewald v. United States Halperin v. United States Bolich v. United States
...Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, with the late Judge Frank dissenting. 233 F.2d 556. We granted certiorari, 352 U.S. 866, 77 S.Ct. 91, 1 L.Ed.2d 74, in order to resolve important questions relating to (a) the statute of limitations in conspiracy prosecutions, as to which th......